We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings capable of erring. It will be short sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth— The late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa
Seven days ago, the oracle eventually explained why Nyesom Wike will lead Rivers State for the next three years and three months. As I digested the reasons, I could not but remember Paul and Ogechi Adube. They are living examples of the evil that men did during the last general elections in Rivers. I thank God for their lives. They would have died on April 3, last year when men without brains stormed their home in ONELGA and killed their father, Christopher Adube and three of their siblings. They also killed their family driver and a family friend who was in their home when they came, dressed like soldiers, that evening. The bullets they pumped into 15-year-old Paul’s leg have ensured he is wheel-chair bound. The hot lead they released unto Ogechi’s legs have also seen rods inserted into her bones and because of this, she cannot fold her legs. You can imagine the pains of walking around with legs that feel like wood.
Of the 12 children Adube had with his two wives, three were killed with him; two were left practically crippled and the others now live with shattered dreams. They are not sure of where the next meal will come from. Their father’s sin, I am made to understand, was his affiliation with the APC. His children’s sin was being born by him. The evil men applied the law of Moses forgetting that the coming of our lord Jesus Christ marked the end of that law, which encouraged taking out the father’s sin on the son or daughter.
Paul and Ogechi will never forget. The Adubes and several others are not here to see the Rivers of today. But Ogechi, Paul and other victims of the violence before, during and after the polls are still here, with memories and pains of the bad times thrust on their dear state.
The report of the Rivers Commission of Inquiry headed by the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, said a monthly average of 19 killings occurred in the state between November 2014 and April 2015.
The Commission noted that of the 97 allegations of killings it received, 94 of them occurred between November 15, 2014, and April 11, last year.
Odinkalu said: “This report reaffirms that no state or country should allow a repeat of such violence in the name of politics. It also shows how and why Rivers State and Nigeria must end impunity for political violence.
“The evidence suggests a significant incidence of internal displacement resulted from political violence in many parts of Rivers State.
“The Commission of Inquiry also received evidence which strongly suggested that sexual violence was part of the arsenal of political violence in some areas.
“We met some of their survivors. There were children orphaned. The youngest we met was 9 months old when his father was killed in his presence. He was still breastfeeding.
“We met young widows of political violence, as well as grand-mothers who had to bury their grand-sons killed in violence. Their stories deserve to be told and heard. They deserve justice as well as political leaders and security agencies that will protect their best interests.”
For the oracle of the judiciary, the killings Odinkalu spoke about were “hearsay”. May be the bodies of the victims would have convinced the seven-man panel of the court led by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mahmud Mohammed.
In the wisdom of the justices, the evidence provided by security agencies — police, army and DSS officials — were hearsay and should not have made any impression on the tribunal and the Court of Appeal. One man’s meat, another’s poison, it sounds to me. So, since the court sees what the security agents said as hearsay, Dr. Dakuku Peterside and his party failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them.
The justices also said the tribunal and the Court of Appeal were wrong to have based their decisions on the petitioners’ claim that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) officials’ failed to adhere to the commission’s manual, guidelines and directives on the exclusive use of the card reader for accreditation.
The court raised another issue, which got me thinking. It said the tribunal denied Wike and his party, the right to fair hearing by allowing a wrong panel to deliver ruling on an application they filed, challenging the competence of the petition.
Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, while giving reasons for the position she took in the lead judgment, held that it was wrong for Justice Suleiman Ambrosa, the later chairman of the tribunal, to have chaired the panel that delivered the ruling on the application by Wike and PDP when he was not the chairman when the application was argued. For the apex court, this alone was enough to throw away the whole case.
Let me offer some background information here. As at the time the chairman of the tribunal was changed for reasons, I believe, will later come out in the open, the 180 days which the tribunal was given to sit and deliver judgment was almost out and as at that time, the hearing proper had not begun. Witnesses were still waiting to take their turn.
Time had been wasted on issues such as whether or not it was right for the tribunal to be sitting in Abuja and the quest by the petitioners to have the election materials subjected to forensic examination. If the tribunal, whose chairman was the only one changed (other members who were in the panel from the beginning were still there), had started all over again, there would have been no time to hear the case. It would have died a technical death on the account that 180 days had lapsed.
Before then, lawyers as usual had used all kinds of delay tactics to ensure time was wasted, all in the hope of ensuring the case died technically.
Given the apex court’s position that one witness each ought to have been from each polling unit, I am afraid nobody can prove election fraud again. It is impossible for a petitioner to be able to achieve this. The lawyers on the defendants’ side always ensure there is no enough time to call them to the witness box. Rivers, for instance, has over 4,000 polling units. The petitioners had less than two weeks to call witnesses, who must also be cross-examined. I sincerely believe this cannot be done within the allotted time. I am afraid proving electoral fraud using the apex court’s model will be impossible.
Looking at the reasons given by the apex court, I agree with my big brother, Olakunle Abimbola, that the implication of the judgment is akin to saying: “Go forth, electoral bandits. In the next bout of re-runs in Rivers and elsewhere, kill, maim, rape and raze! It is perfectly legal!”
I equally allign myself with another big brother and Managing Director of This Day, Eniola Bello, who wrote on Tuesday: “Bloody violence marked the governorship elections in Akwa Ibom and Rivers States, in the one to a lesser extent, and in the other to a greater degree. Although Akwa Ibom’s Emmanuel and Rivers Nyesom Wike had their victories validated at the Supreme Court on technical grounds, to bring the God factor to election victories so stained with blood is turning the grandeur of righteousness on its head. God is a force of order, not of confusion and chaos. It is therefore curious for Oyedepo to conclude, as he did in his message at Uyo, that what was being celebrated “is the supreme hand of God in the affairs of men.” I would want to believe that all those wild thanksgiving services by our politicians, in the circumstance, do not, to use the words of Apostle Paul (Roman 16:18), ‘serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by sweet words and flattering speech deceive the mind of the simple.’”
Another This Day columnist and former Editor, Olusegun Adeniyi, believes that the so-called elections that produced Governors Wike (Rivers) and Udom Emmanuel (Akwa Ibom) were not credible, no matter how many “thanksgiving” church services the duo hold. He observed yesterday: “Common sense and empirical observations suggest that there were no credible elections in Akwa Ibom and Rivers States and that Alex Otti won the majority votes in Abia State. The lower echelons of our court system even upheld these conclusions. But the Supreme Court, as the final arbiter on matters of law and legal justice in the land, obviously applied the more arcane technical legality by delivering judgements that, many would argue, do not advance the course of justice in our country.”
May be we should take solace in another point made by Adeniyi in his column yesterday: “We should also not lose sight of one fact. In most climes, the Supreme Court often weigh in on the side of order, especially in situations where justice could feed the ogre of violence and bloodshed and may cause more problems for the people. That then explains why those who sit at the apex court sometimes go beyond the law as was the case in the United States in Gore versus Bush.”
I also agree with Prof Itse Sagay that the law should not be about technicalities and that justice, not judgment, should always prevail.
My final take on this matter: Is the Supreme Court infallible? Is it wrong to criticise its decisions? The learned ones have told me it is not. The late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa once said: “We are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final.” The implication of this statement is that the Supreme Court can err, but when it does its decision still remains final, except it reverses itself. So, we are bound by it. But we are not bound to keep quiet about the flipsides of its decisions.
And to the aggrieved and the families of the about 100 people whose blood were spilled before and during this poll now sanctioned by the oracle, the only option is to wait for the bigger oracle in heaven. It shall be well with Rivers. Rivers shall sing and dance to the end of violence.
•Concluded
